Mother of Palin's boyfriend arrest

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I've been looking as well. I will be sufficiently humbled if there is an actual live birth.

Otherwise I will continue to believe that Trig is Bristol's baby. The circumstances surrounding his birth just don't make much sense. Either Palin is irresponsible as all get out, or she was covering for Bristol.

For example...Palin has stated that she knew early in the pregnancy that the baby had Down Syndrome, meaning that along with the fact that she was 40+, it was a high risk pregnancy. She was in Texas to give a speech when her water broke. She went ahead to give the speech anyway. She then proceeded to leave the place where she gave the speech and get on a plane while IN LABOR. I must stop at this point and add that airlines don't want/allow you to fly once you reach a certain stage of pregnancy and I KNOW they would not allow a woman in labor to fly. This of course involved deception on her part because she got on the plane and did not tell anyone she was in labor. Going back to the story, she had to fly eight hours to reach Alaska where she then had to drive another 45 minutes to reach the hospital where she gave birth. Now I know she prides herself on being heroic, but is that really even plausible or realistic or RESPONSIBLE behavior for someone with a high risk pregnancy? Or is it the behavior of someone who probably isn't pregnant, but is rushing home where her pregnant daughter is about to give birth?

So . . . even if we assume all of this is true (NOTE: there's no real evidence it went down just like this), you really think the most likely explanation is thus that . . . Trig is her daughter's baby? That's the Occam's Razor solution?

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

So . . . even if we assume all of this is true (NOTE: there's no real evidence it went down just like this), you really think the most likely explanation is thus that . . . Trig is her daughter's baby? That's the Occam's Razor solution?

Actually Palin herself has given this account. It ws a part of her effort to show everyone how tough she is and her level of dedication. Going through all of that and then going back to work a few days after the baby was born.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Actually Palin herself has given this account. It ws a part of her effort to show everyone how tough she is and her level of dedication. Going through all of that and then going back to work a few days after the baby was born.

And your own statement gives a perfectly valid reason why I think it's somewhat exaggerated, and likely not fit as evidence of conspiracy - she's not credible, in a sense, because there is motivation to appear a certain way.

That's about the farthest thing from proof (of any sort) that her child is anything but her own. She's provided birth records. Seriously.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

And your own statement gives a perfectly valid reason why I think it's somewhat exaggerated, and likely not fit as evidence of conspiracy - she's not credible, in a sense, because there is motivation to appear a certain way.

That's about the farthest thing from proof (of any sort) that her child is anything but her own. She's provided birth records. Seriously.

No my statement is not a valid reason for you to think it is exaggerated.

I notice people always make this argument when something utterly ridiculous is revealed about someone and they can't accept it. When I say there is motivation to appear a certain way...there is. She has made it clear that she wants to let people know how dedicated she is and she offered up the fact that she went back to work three days after giving birth as proof of that. And while I applaud all working mothers, especially if they are in such high profile positions, I know that I'm not alone in questioning her judgment in going back to work so soon after giving birth to a baby with DS and choosing to fly on a plane for 8 hours while in labor. I'm sorry if you can't wrap your mind around it, but your decision to remain in denial does not make this any less true.
On another note, from what I understand she never actually provided a birth record for Trig. In fact I think there was also an issue because she did not provide any medical records indicating that she had actually given birth around the time that Trig was actually born.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

No my statement is not a valid reason for you to think it is exaggerated.

I notice people always make this argument when something utterly ridiculous is revealed about someone and they can't accept it. When I say there is motivation to appear a certain way...there is. She has made it clear that she wants to let people know how dedicated she is and she offered up the fact that she went back to work three days after giving birth as proof of that. And while I applaud all working mothers, especially if they are in such high profile positions, I know that I'm not alone in questioning her judgment in going back to work so soon after giving birth to a baby with DS and choosing to fly on a plane for 8 hours while in labor. I'm sorry if you can't wrap your mind around it, but your decision to remain in denial does not make this any less true.
On another note, from what I understand she never actually provided a birth record for Trig. In fact I think there was also an issue because she did not provide any medical records indicating that she had actually given birth around the time that Trig was actually born.

I told ya....hehe

Pass the popcorn.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

I told ya....hehe

Pass the popcorn.

lol

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

No my statement is not a valid reason for you to think it is exaggerated.

Yes, it is. Let me spell this out more clearly:

Palin is politically motivated. You noted that her 'motivation' (as it were) was to make herself appear to be more courageous or warrior-like in the eyes of voters. This means she has every reason to 'color' the story to fit that goal - just like HRC talking about "sniper fire" in Bosnia. That's how people work, and it's really the definition of 'spin' in politics.

This motivation seems much more clear than her motivation in going out of her way to appear pregnant to cover for her daughter, when any number of other, practical solutions would have been easier. The burden of proof, as it is, is on you, because you are the one violating Occam's Razor (among other logical tests).

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I notice people always make this argument when something utterly ridiculous is revealed about someone and they can't accept it.

I've noticed that posters who speak in platitudes are generally wrong.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

When I say there is motivation to appear a certain way...there is. She has made it clear that she wants to let people know how dedicated she is and she offered up the fact that she went back to work three days after giving birth as proof of that.

I agree with this. It's even my very point. The most likely purpose, though, isn't what you're claiming it is.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

And while I applaud all working mothers, especially if they are in such high profile positions, I know that I'm not alone in questioning her judgment in going back to work so soon after giving birth to a baby with DS and choosing to fly on a plane for 8 hours while in labor. I'm sorry if you can't wrap your mind around it, but your decision to remain in denial does not make this any less true.

The only thing I'm 'denying' is the logic of your assertions. I'm not a Palin fan, or even a Republican. Your application of false motives to my posts actually says more about you than me.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

On another note, from what I understand she never actually provided a birth record for Trig. In fact I think there was also an issue because she did not provide any medical records indicating that she had actually given birth around the time that Trig was actually born.

OK - so she just has a letter from the doctor. The absence of proof is not proof of absence. Hook me up with evidence. Once again - burden of proof. On you. Not me.

[DaemonSeid]

to review...also go here:

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...=99145&page=10

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

The only thing I'm 'denying' is the logic of your assertions. I'm not a Palin fan, or even a Republican. Your application of false motives to my posts actually says more about you than me.



OK - so she just has a letter from the doctor. The absence of proof is not proof of absence. Hook me up with evidence. Once again - burden of proof. On you. Not me.

Actually if there is nothing to hide, then why not produce the records? As much as Palin talks about honesty and integrity, seems like she would be open to that as well. And besides, as I stated previously there has been no release of RECORDS. You specifically referred to RECORDS and those carry FAR more weight than a mere letter from a doctor. By the time the doctor wrote this letter, they could have just produced the records. The end.

You can go on all day about how what I'm saying is not true and whatnot. That still doesn't mean anything. There is far more evidence on MY side than on yours at this point. You apparently want to keep your head in the sand. And the burden of proof is on YOU to use your Internet the same way that everyone else does. That way you can find your own sources because if I povide you with sources, the next thing that you will say is that my sources are biased.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Actually if there is nothing to hide, then why not produce the records? As much as Palin talks about honesty and integrity, seems like she would be open to that as well. And besides, as I stated previously there has been no release of RECORDS. You specifically referred to RECORDS and those carry FAR more weight than a mere letter from a doctor. By the time the doctor wrote this letter, they could have just produced the records. The end.

OK - but wait, unfortunately for you, there's more to it than this!

Why should she have to prove her daughter was hers? Maybe Ms. Palin has AIDS or Hep C, and doesn't want that part of her record public (she can't exactly redact parts, or you'll still be dissatisfied, right?). Maybe it was a non-standard birth and she took drugs. Maybe the records aren't easy to find, or reveal something else private. All of these are incredibly good reasons to protect your own privacy - ones the US Government and SCOTUS both feel are well worth securing.

Let's see why you think she should:

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

You can go on all day about how what I'm saying is not true and whatnot. That still doesn't mean anything. There is far more evidence on MY side than on yours at this point. You apparently want to keep your head in the sand. And the burden of proof is on YOU to use your Internet the same way that everyone else does. That way you can find your own sources because if I povide you with sources, the next thing that you will say is that my sources are biased.

Here's the deal. You are promoting that something is false (in this case, "Trig Palin is Sarah Palin's son"). You are asserting that there are facts to back this up. I am asking for them; you are not providing them.

So her daughter missed 4 months of school during a time frame that may or may not coincide with part of the pregnancy, depending on who you believe? Inconclusive, but by far your best evidence. Some 'friends' (unnamed, as far as I've seen) claim they didn't know Palin was pregnant until the shower? Uh, OK, there's this whole "job" thing that may just have taken up more time, who knows? Not close to conclusive. Additionally, this is counteracted by her public appearances.

The rhetorical device, "why get pregnant at that stage in your political career?" Specious at best, intentionally misleading at worst. This is a religious woman who is anywhere from slightly to wildly against birth control and abortion. Accidents happen. It's no more or less likely that Palin had the accident than Bristol having it . . . twice . . . in a row. As such, there's no reason to deviate from the stated story - there's just no solid evidence, just assertion or innuendo that requires you to make a judgment about Ms. Palin's personality and motivation rather than actual facts!

Things you haven't accounted for:

-Why cover it up? She had no knowledge she was a VP candidate until just before the actual selection, and thus the Trig issue would have required a massive cover-up for reasons unrelated to her VP run . . . that's a lot of foresight for someone most don't think is all that smart.

-Why cover it up in the specific fashion she did (i.e. appearing as pregnant in public)? There are easier ways that you must discount first.

-Again, read up on Occam's Razor. Why take the leap?

OK - see, here's the difference between what I'm actually saying and what you're reading . . . while I would be surprised if this was indeed some massive conspiracy, I'm not completely closed to it. I simply have not seen any evidence that this is the case, and until then, I'll go with the simplest solution as the most likely. If you can provide any evidence, I'll look at it objectively and decide on its own merits.

Can you say the same? Remember, again: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We can take it one logical fallacy at the time, if you'd like.